Friday, May 30, 2014

I frequently point out that conservatives routinely, consistently, persistently, and dogmatically believe things which are factually false, are based on flawed reasoning, and is resistant to the obvious evidence of bad outcomes.

We have the highest incidence of new cases of contagious diseases, disease which had been presumed eradicated, in the last 20 years. Why? Because of conservative stupidity.

Their rejection of fact and science is ideologically driven to the exclusion of any objective reality that does not conform to that ideology.

It is a system of beliefs that is stupid, not just annoying stupid, but deadly dangerously stupid.

We see right wing nutters like Alex Jones promote factually false fearmongering about vaccines. The principle vaccine myth - one that is easily debunked - is about mercury. Child vaccines do not contain mercury; there are only trace amounts in SOME specific adult vaccines -- and then only in the multi-dose containers. CLEARLY, the benefits of preventing microbial growth far outweighs any negatives. There is no link, zero link, between vaccines and side effects wrongly attributed to them, like autism. People DO risk allergic reactions, but we all face that risk, anytime we do or try something new - our first bee sting, the first time we eat shellfish or peanut butter, etc.

There are far more people impaired or killed by these diseases than are harmed by allergy reactions, which while they can be extreme, are mostly quite mild.

Fluoridation is generally known as the addition of fluoride to the municipal water supply. However, what most people do not know is that fluoridation can also mean the removal of excess fluoride that occurs naturally in groundwater. Fluoride is a natural component of groundwater, and it occurs naturally everywhere in the world, in varying amounts. The process of fluoridation is to adjust the fluoride content of the water to the most healthful level.

Years of research and testing in different cities and states, conducted by the National Health Service, has determined that one part per million is the ideal proportion, giving a substantial protection from tooth decay, and avoiding dental fluorosis. Ever since then, it has been the standard practice to regulate fluoride levels in municipal water supplies to one part per million. There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health, and exactly zero rigorously conducted scientific trials that have indicated any sign of danger. For all practical purposes, it is an over-and-done-with issue.

An over-and-done-with issue. Like anthropogenic climate change. Like the sciences that support Evolution. Like the concerns about child vaccinations causing autism because of mercury as a preservative in vaccines.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

He just can't help himself; Craig Cobb has a flat learning curve. He appears not to be trusted. The judge and the prosecutor let him off way too easily, if this is true, when they made the plea bargain. He said he was done with White Supremacy, but apparently not.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

US President Barack Obama has led the tributes to Maya Angelou, describing the poet, author and activist as "one of the brightest lights of our time".

He hailed Angelou, who has died aged 86, as "a brilliant writer, a fierce friend and a truly phenomenal woman".
She made her name with the memoir I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which charted a childhood of oppression and abuse in the Deep South in the 1930s.
Her family described her as "a warrior for equality, tolerance and peace".
In a statement on Facebook, they said she passed away quietly at home in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, at 08:00 EST (12:00 GMT).
"Her family is extremely grateful that her ascension was not belaboured by a loss of acuity or comprehension," they said.
"She lived a life as a teacher, activist, artist and human being... The family is extremely appreciative of the time we had with her and we know that she is looking down upon us with love."

I delight that Ms. Angelou had the pleasure, after a life of struggle, to see a black president elected not once but twice in her lifetime.

Better funding of background checks so as to provide data to the NICS data base help prevent the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining legal guns from FFL licensed sources.

We still have the problem of the dangerously mentally ill obtaining legal guns through other means, and of course, we have too many illegal guns available in our society as well.

But when we have the radical right wing nuttery trying to equate partisan political affiliation with mental illness, and/or fraudulently and factually inaccurately trying to categorize all mass shootings as having a mental illness causation, we need to object. We must push back against this faulty thinking, this profoundly flawed analysis, and this crackpot right wing belief. It is trying to redefine the NRA fiction of a bad guy with a gun as a crazy bad guy with a gun.

We must push back because what this really represents, above and beyond attempting simply to disparage the opposition by the right, is that this claim attempts to redefine gun control arguments and focus. We see some acquiescence to this change of focus by Sen. Blumenthal, in his appearance on Face the Nation, this past Sunday (CBS).

So for example, the excellent article in the Examiner debunked a widely circulated belief on the right, one that occurs across the right wing echo chamber/bubble, that mass shootings are by registered democrats, or at the very least, "lefty leaners".

The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth

Based on the assertions of Roger Hedgecock a right-wing radio show host,
the meme that the five worst recent mass shootings were committed by
registered Democrats is making its way through e-mail chains and social
media. Hedgecock asserts, without providing any evidence or sources,
that the Ft. Hood shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Aurora Theater
shooter and Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook infamy were all “registered
Democrats”. He acknowledges that Klebold and Harris (the Columbine
Colorado shooters) were too young to be registered voters but asserts,
again without providing any evidence, that Harris and Klebold’s parents
were progressives or liberal Democrats.

In another forum, the radical righties insisted that, ok, so this author debunked the last five mass shooters --- but those OTHER shootings were all by lefties! No. Wrong. Factually false.

1. Elliot Rodgers the most recent mass shooter was proclaimed a 'lefty' because he subscribed to the youtube feed from the Young Turks.

THAT does not define someone as a lefty; I follow Fox News on Facebook, it doesn't make me a right wing nut.

What does appear to show a larger and more valid claim to political orientation and affiliation however is the links to the ultra-conservative male-dominionist men's rights movement expressed in his videos and manifesto, and supported apparently by his reported internet history.

2. Another example claimed -- that James Holmes was a member of Occupy San Diego. That is also factually false. At no time was Holmes involved in any way with Occupy San Diego, nor so far as I can find, did he have any political opinion. He appears to have been apolitical.

We don't know definitively yet if Holmes was mentally ill, or if he was, that mental illness had any causational role in his actions. In contrast, we know that Jared Loughner suffered from severe schizophrenia, but that appears to be the exception to the rule, not typical of mass shooters.

3. Claims that Karl Pierson was a 'lefty' also don't hold up well to scrutiny. The basis for that claim appears to be that he was an advocate for Keynesian economics, and that one student at his school variously claimed he was a communist or a socialist. What is not at all clear is if the student who made those claims even knew Pierson, much less knew him well. There are Keynsian economists and advocates or proponents across the political spectrum; being a Keynsian is not even remotely the same thing as being a 'commie' or a 'socialist'. There appears to be zero factual basis for the claim that Pierson was a socialist, 'commie' or in any other way a 'lefty'. What is clear from the way those words lefty and commie and marxist are used on the right, however, is that most of those who use those terms casually and interchangeably have no clue what the terms mean. Rather they lob them like bad-word grenades to name-call people with whom they disagree, without regard to actual definitions.

4. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter has been incorrectly identified over and over on the right as a 'lefty' and a registered Democrat. He was not a lefty, and not a registered voter. If he was mentally ill, we have no diagnosis of it sufficiently chronologically proximate to the shooting, nor do we know if his mental health had any direct causation on his actions. What we do know is that he seemed to share his mother's ultra-conservative views, and that she was a right wing prepper crackpot, of the variety that believes the rubbish promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck.

5. Jared Loughner -- yup, he was severely mentally ill, and yup, that had a direct causational role in his mass shooting. But no, he was not a lefty, and to refute some of the claims made on the right, he was never a volunteer working for Gabby Giffords. What we do know is that he had some vague left-leaning political notions while he was still sane, but that as he became increasingly erratic and his mental illness worsened, he began to visit extremist conservative crackpot web sites, and the ideas from those right wing websites were repeated in communication to Giffords and the Gifford campaign, and that he appears to have targeted Giffords for rejecting those ideas (or at least, not supporting them).

Some mass shootings ARE political in nature, but those are NOT also mental illness caused attacks. Those mass shootings have been, consistently, by radical right wingers.

From the same article:

Interestingly, Hedgecock and those on the far right have conveniently overlooked a number of cases where ideology is clearly right-wing. The acts below are instances of right-wing violence that are unequivocally committed by people who are openly hostile to liberalism. While this does not mean these killers are Republicans, it is quite clear that they are RIGHT-WINGERS and that they have far more in common with Mr. Hedgecock, Alex Jones and the other gun-toting conspiracy nuts on the right than with any evils associated with the Democratic Party or liberalism. In addition, to the list below is the obvious case of Timothy McVeigh, who I have not included because his crime was not committed with firearms. It was however, committed by a right-winger and the carnage was on a massive scale.

For example, on July 18,84 James Oliver Huberty, who told his wife he hated “children, Mexicans and the United States” opened fire inside the McDonald’s Restaurant in San Ysidro, CA using a Browning P-35 Hi-Power 9mm pistol, Winchester 1200 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and an Israeli Military Industries 9mm Carbine (Uzi) – all legally acquired. He killed 21 and injured 19 before he was shot dead by police.

Monday, May 26, 2014

While the United States has seen a steady decline in overall
criminal activity, including homicide, over the past 20 years, something rarely
reported on by the right-wing media; one specific crime, mass killings by
young, troubled minds, has gone up.During the same period, since a mass killing in Australia prompted the
Australians to ban handguns, mass shootings have plummeted to zero.

Why is it we cannot have a literate, meaningful discussion
on this subject?

On one side, certain people advocate banning nearly all
firearms, an extreme reaction to the above problem.

On the other side, people who oppose doing ANYTHING to curb
the violence, make comments like, “Anyone with a knife could have committed the
same crimes as those committed in California, so it’s not that guns are the
problem,” they claim instead that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

What is missed on the first side is that people do indeed
have a right to defend themselves, and firearms do make that easier.

What is missed on the second side isn’t that people who
advocate for stronger gun laws are stupid, they understand someone has to pull
the trigger.They also understand that
while someone CAN kill with a knife, it’s a helluva lot easier with a gun.Were it not, cops would carry swords.

Instead of having a real conversation about our obsession
with guns and gun violence, we mask our debate in claims that one side loves
butchery (or at least is ambivalent), and the other claims it’s only “the bad
guys” who are the problem, purposely (seemingly) failing to grasp that it is
THEIR friends, THEIR confidants who also take out their guns and kill their
wives, sons, husbands, friends, and so on, either on purpose, or
accidentally.They refuse to even
discuss the 95% failure rate firearms have in saving versus taking innocent
life (the rate of gun deaths due to homicide, suicide and accident by LAWFUL
gun owners is 20 times that of lawful self-defense).

So, instead, we fail to do anything to check the backgrounds
of the criminally insane when they walk into a gun show and buy a gun.We fail to do anything to require those who
own firearms to turn them over if a restraining order is issued against them.We fail to ban magazine sizes which only
serve to enable mass shootings and truly really no other meaningful
purpose.We fail to act, we continue to
glorify gun violence instead.We hear
false claims about how “if only” a person with a firearm had been present at
these crimes, when in fact, oft times, there have been, and those people were
taken by surprise and wer victims themselves.

More importantly, we fail to talk about abuse, familial,
incestuous, physical, bullying, etc... which so often is at the core of the “disturbed”
people’s psyches who commit these horrific bouts of slaughter.We don’t want to confront how our
hyper-aggressive, hyper-violent society is creating monster after monster.We don’t want to admit our complicity, well, until
it strikes one of us directly.

I pray it isn’t you, but for some, it already has been.Your brother, you daughter, your father, took
his/her own life WITH A GUN.Your mother,
your sister, you friend, accidentally died when shot with a weapon that
supposedly wasn’t loaded and was owned by a “lawful gun owner.”

There’s a BS line that goes a conservative is a liberal who
has been mugged, a lesser well-known but more accurate line goes like this…A
liberal is conservative who experienced true injustice.The parents of those children killed at Sandy
Hook cannot fathom how people oppose closing the background check
loophole.The father of one of the
recent shooting victims cannot fathom why the NRA promotes buying guns as a
solution to violence.He doesn’t
understand the NRA HAS to promote buying more guns because they (its leaders) are
the puppets of the gun manufacturers who want ANYTHING to happen other than
slowing the tidal wave of gun sales.If you
are a fan of the NRA, if you oppose acting to limit magazines, or acting to
restrict weapons which can harness that kind of magazine – ask yourself
honestly, why?The McDonald and Heller
decisions settled decisively that you could not possibly lose your right to
carry or own, but they also said a reasonable limit on the type of weapon available
to you is Constitutional.Changing the
culture of violence is good for the US, not bad, as Australia and Europe prove
so conclusively.So ask yourself, why do
you oppose that idea of changing the culture of violence?Why do you think everyone carrying guns is
good?It didn’t work in 1870, so much so
that many towns banned them and, ta da, succeeded in curbing violence.So why are you so opposed to reasonable
discussion on reasonable limits.Why
must you contort the argument to something it’s not about, contorting it from a
discussion about the fact that guns make taking life easier, far easier – to a
fake argument about whether a gun can pull its own trigger?

Perhaps it’s because you’re afraid of the actual discussion which might lead the nation to conclude reasonable limits are reasonable, and a good idea, necessary, and fair.Perhaps it’s because you’ve been told it will lead to you losing your guns (not bloody likely), perhaps it’s because you’re not asking who is telling you this.But then again, perhaps it’s because you don’t care – well, at least until it’s your brother, father, daughter, sister, or son.Then you will, but then it will be too late for you.

Gunslinger/sheriff Wyatt Earp famously banned carrying firearms openly in Dodge City, KS. He enforced that law, and gun violence dropped markedly. A civil society is not that which enables gun barbarism and vigilantism, it is one which seeks solutions outside of angry, violent knee-jerk responses. It seeks solutions other than killing teenage children in a shooting gallery and then ensuring you've executed them "good and proper" because they broke into your house, as opposed to calling the police. Instead of killing without pause or remorse, instead of saying "HELL YEAH!" when someone dies, perhaps it's time we learn to cry about how bad we've left the rails of civility and restraint behind. Killing someone in your own defense is not wrong, it is not immoral, but it sure as hell ought to be your last resort. We've created a society which thinks pulling out a gun is a first response and solution, not the last.

Today is the day we honor and acknowledge those who died in military service on behalf of this country.

Today is the day we honor and acknowledge that sacrifice in defense of our nation, our form of government, our Constitution.

The core premise of our government, what is established by our Constitution, what was so beautifully articulated by Abraham Lincoln, president during the Civil War which inspired this holiday, is "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

That is what those men and women, all of them back to the American revolution died to protect and defend and to ensure continues.

That government of the people, by the people, takes place through the function of one man (or woman), and one vote.

That is NOT one vote ONLY for a few, special, privileged people who have the 'right' color, ethnicity or origins, the 'right' religion, or the 'right' economic status, or the 'right' political ideology.

That is the opposite of one person/one vote. That is the opposite of legitimate representative government - the form of government that defines our nation.

That was what those wars where those people died we honor today were fought to oppose - to prevent control of government by the few, to prevent human beings from treatment as second class citizens.

I think about that every time I see an effort by conservatives to suppress or limit or restrict or in some way impair or make more difficult the right of people - American citizens - legally to exercise their right to vote.

The National Reportrecently ran this headline, reflecting an ugly moment of honesty and candor:

Secret McConnell Recording: Tea Party Lost Primaries Because It “hasn’t learned to conceal its racism”

“They have their strong base, their core. But, they don’t have success courting the middle. You know why? It’s their overt racism. The Tea Party hasn’t learned to conceal its racism. That’s where they fail. The Republican party knows better. Want to keep minority voters from the polls? Fine, set up hindrances to “prevent voter fraud”. Want to cut social services? Fine, but do it for “fiscal conservatism”. These Tea Party idiots and their supporters are out hollering the N word, calling Obama an ape, suggest Michelle is a transvestite. That alienates the middle. That’s what costs them. You want to think those things? Think them to yourselves. You want to legislate against that them? Come up with an excuse. The Tea Party will remain an also ran unless they work on their poker face a bit more”.

It should be obvious to Mitch McConnell and to all conservatives that keeping minority voters from the polls, or keeping anyone from voting as easily as others vote that he is dishonoring what those veterans fought and died to protect by voter suppression.

By voter suppression I mean:

creating long lines by reducing polling places or making them inaccessible,

reducing early voter days,

not providing bathrooms to people who come to a location to vote,

purging legitimate voters from voting rolls,

voter ID when there is not a problem with voter fraud that would be solved by that solution-in-search-of-a-problem,

laws which disenfranchise criminals who have paid their debt to society so as to disproportionately disenfranchise minority ethnicities

laws which make it more difficult or expensive for people to register to vote

laws which privatize voting, and which require voting machines that result in 'hanging chads' or dubious electronic results vulnerable to tampering

Think of that today. Think about what people died to preserve, think about the ideal, think about Lincoln's words (a liberal), think about Jefferson's words (another liberal) in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All men (and women) are created equal, have equal rights, all men - and women - NOT some second class citizens. Men and women have bled and died for that.

Friday, May 23, 2014

OMG -- VOLDEMORT IS REAL! And he is actually a shape shifting SPACE ALIEN (who looks a little bit like James Carville - uh OH!).

Here is a little fun at the expense of the cray cray CRAZY conservative conspiracy theory believers. There are, sadly, so many of them; it is a defining quality of conservatives that they believe things which are not true or factual. This appears to trace back to a conspiracy theory nut named - appropriately - David Icke.

And rounding out the roll call of the dim and misguided and scientifically ignorant, recently we have the Congresman from New York, Republican Chris Collins of New York, inquiring in an official Congressional science hearing. on extra-terrestrial life:

"I think I might ask the question everyone in this room wants to ask, Have you watched 'Ancient Aliens', and what is your comment about that series?"

If you are one of those of us who like their science factual, and straightforward, not stupid and fictional, here is a link that gives you a little background on what that series is - and it damned well is NOT in any way, shape or form science, but it does appeal to the same right wing crowd that believes in shape changing space aliens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

Some reviewers have characterized the show as "far-fetched",[10] "hugely speculative",[11] and "...expound[ing] wildly on theories suggesting that astronauts wandered the Earth freely in ancient times."[12] Many of the ideas presented in the show are not accepted by the scientific community, and have been criticized as pseudoscience and pseudohistory.[13] History professor Ronald H. Fritze observed that pseudoscience as offered by von Däniken and the Ancient Aliens program has a periodic popularity in the US: "In a pop culture with a short memory and a voracious appetite, aliens and pyramids and lost civilizations are recycled like fashions."[13][14]

Forbes.com contributor Brad Lockwood criticized Ancient Aliens as an example of the History Channel's addition of "programs devoted to monsters, aliens and conspiracies", commenting that, "Ancient Aliens defies all ability to suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment."[15] Forbes.com staff writer Alex Knapp also criticized the series and cited archaeologist Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews' rebuke of the History Channel for "treating (Ancient Aliens) nonsense as though it were fact."[16]

Smithsonian.com science writer Brian Switek was extremely critical of the series, particularly an episode that suggested "aliens exterminated dinosaurs to make way for our species". He characterized the show as "some of the most noxious sludge in television’s bottomless chum bucket."

But some of them are inadvertently really really funny. Join me in laughing at them, not with them.

We’ve recently seen new gains for the LGBT community, notably for marriage equality in Pennsylvania, Idaho and Oregon this week. I can only imagine the uproar now that the Harvey Milk stamp came out today. There was a White House ceremony and everything.

So, it follows that we see greater insanity from the radical right in response.

1. believing things which are not true; and
2. seeing themselves as victims when they are not.

Then we have Rep. Charles Van Zant, a Florida Republican, who has doubled down on his insistence that Common Core will turn every child in our public schools gay. As noted by Think Progress,

“I don’t believe that that has any place being introduced into Florida’s schools,” Van Zant said. He called for Florida’s curricula to only teach courses like history and civics, subjects which he seems to believe are wholly devoid of gay people.”

I’m particularly struck by the notion that anything in any school curriculum COULD alter someone’s sexual orientation. The very premise of that is so badly flawed and without any credible substance or factual merit.

While this was somewhat dealt with by Politifact.com earlier this week, which gave a pants-on-fire rating to Van Zant who had claimed [Common Core would] “attract every one of your children to become as homosexual as they possibly can.”, I was struck by the notion that Van Zant appears to hold that there might be degrees of same sex orientation — which is as odd as being ‘ a little bit pregnant’ or a little bit heterosexual.

Meanwhile, in Houston, the radical religious right (who REALLY seem to have a warped and anti-ALL sexual bias) are back at it, pushing the false notion that gay and transgender people are all perverts and sexual predators.

In an analysis published a few weeks ago, ADF claimed that the ERO will place “women and children at risk of voyeurism, photographing and video recording, and sexual assault” because of “men in women’s” facilities. The memo also claimed that individuals and churches could be prosecuted — in both cases because they discriminated in either providing services or employment.
These same arguments are apparent in talking points that have been distributed to would-be opponents of the ERO at city council meetings. It blatantly suggests that the protections will lead to rape, “more perverted men to become bold in acting out their perversion,” “sex offenders to roam around public bathrooms,” “physical, verbal, and sexual abuse,” and the promotion of “sexual intercourse in a public setting.” This, the hand-out warns, could expose children to behavior “that should not be so” and may lead them “to start experimenting different acts or things in which they normally would never have done.”
According to Texas Values, the state’s prominent Christian conservative group (and a state affiliate of the Family Research Council), the ERO also “falsely equates race with sexual conduct,” suggesting that sexual orientation is not an “inborn, involuntary, and immutable trait” like race, national origin, sex, and — ironically — religion. The Family Research Council (FRC) chimed in this week as well, describing the bill as celebrating “a radical definition of sexuality.
FRC also highlighted how local conservatives have dubbed the ERO “Mayor Parker’s Sexual Predator Protection Act.” Jared Woodfill, Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party, believes that it “provides an opportunity for sexual predators to have access to our families.” State Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R) similarly believes that the ordinance will protect “men ‘dressing up’ as women to enter and terrorize women and children.”

And like the conservative opposition many years ago the Equal Rights Amendment, the radical and religious right nuts have terrible potty hang ups. Back in the day of the ERA the fear promoted by the right was that we would have ONLY unisex bathrooms – you know, like the ones you have in YOUR HOME – that could be used by either sex.

This is an issue that arose in California, in the context of school bathrooms as a reason to intrude radical right big heavy-handed oppressive government into individual sexual orientation, and it was an issue in other cities with their anti-discrimination ordinances. They seem to be dealing with it, in spite of the hysterical conservatives in their midst.

Despite how contentious Houston’s fight has been, the public outcry and unfounded concerns about the consequences of allowing transgender people to safely use the bathroom are identical to when the same fight played out in San Antonio last year. San Antonio’s City Council passed its ordinance, with no exceptions for discriminating against transgender people, by an 8-3 vote.

Exiting the world of bathrooms for the moment, in Michigan conservatives are struggling with the facts of disease and sexual orientation, demonstrating the same failed thinking that they espouse in abstinence only sex ed – that if you don’t give people accurate information or if you express disapproval, no one will have sex… except for minimal efforts at procreation. Because apparently for Conservatives, if no one tells you how, you will never, EVER, figure out how sex works.:

ThinkProgress reached out to the Liberty Counsel Friday morning for clarification as to how maintaining the status quo for marriage might impact the health of people who identify as gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Mandi Campbell, a litigator for the organization, explained that in general, homosexuals cannot — or at least do not — commit to relationships that are both exclusive and permanent. Thus, they cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage. The government’s actions communicate what is “right and wrong” and “good and bad,” and so because of the health consequences associated with gay sex, it should not encourage or endorse that behavior. Campbell confirmed that the Liberty Counsel believes that even though banning same-sex marriage will not change the number of people who identify as gay, it will discourage people from engaging in same-sex sexual behavior.

David Wise was convicted of six felony counts for drugging his wife, raping her in her sleep, and videotaping the rapes. But he won’t spend a day in jail.
Wise was sentenced by an Indiana county judge to eight years of home confinement, and the remaining 12 years of his 20-year sentence suspended. Prosecutors asked for 40 years in prison. His former wife, Mandy Boardman, called the sentence “unfathomable.” “I never thought that he would be at home, being able to have the same rights and privileges as I do,” she told the Los Angeles Times.
Boardman recalled years in which there would be powder residue in her drink. She would wake up with a half-dissolved pill in her mouth. After she found videos of sexual encounters on Wise’s cell phone and confronted him, he wrote in an email to her, “I was taking advantage of you in your sleep and you kept coming to me and telling me it was NOT ok. I needed to stop.” The rapes went on for more than three years unbeknownst to Boardman.
Marion Superior Court Judge Kurt Eisgruber declined to explain his reasoning, particularly because Boardman is appealing the sentence. But he did ask Boardman to forgive Eisgruber during the sentencing hearing, saying, “I hope that you can forgive him one day, because he’s obviously struggled with this and struggled to this day, and I hope that she could forgive him.” He is running for re-election unopposed this November.

Given the inappropriately LIGHT sentences we have seen recently by conservative judges for other sexual predator crimes committed by heterosexual perpetrators, and the lack of any significant conservative outrage, one has to wonder if it is ONLY a pretext on the part of bigots who are homophobic and looking for excuses to discriminate. What cases? In Texas, a judge sentenced a man to 45 days of jail time and some community service at a rape counseling center (without consulting the center first) after he pleaded guilty to raping a 14 year old. In Delaware a really rich guy got just probation for raping his 3 year old daughter. In Montana a teacher got 30 days in jail for raping a student, and in Alabama another sentence of probation for raping a young teen - more than once.

Where is the outrage, the fear, the public pressure for this kind of heterosexual predatory behavior, when it is men viciously committing sexual assault on women and girls, in one case a toddler?

Crickets.

So much for family values. And the right wonders why women don't see them as treating women as equals, or respecting them as human beings?

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

It seems that anti-intellectualism and dumbing down are alive and well in the US as my previous post on this topic pointed out, but it is REALLY bad at how DUMB people can be as the Vanity Fair Editorial The Creeping Danger of Conspiracy Theorists points out:

But some of the latest polling data does seem
to show that at least 30 percent of American citizens—and maybe lots
more—are as dumb as a bag of inbred hammers.

The poll in question is a delightful one put out this week by Public Policy Polling,
a concern ranked by Fordham University as the best out of 28
organizations for the accuracy of its national pre-election estimates in
2012. This time, the folks at P.P.P. decided to have a bit of fun, and
rather than polling about which political party is up or down, opted to
ask Americans about their beliefs in conspiracy theories. I can just
imagine the laughter at the P.P.P. offices when they started putting
together the questions.

Yes, you can find out how dumb and hoodwinked people are at this editorial.

As the editorial ends:

Yes, we have become scientific and political illiterates, and no
nation can survive on a bedrock of such delusional stupidity. Of course,
the 26 percent (or more) won’t believe me, if they manage to read this.
I’ll just be deemed an “elitist” for daring to suggest that demon
science and data, rather than ridiculous conspiracy theories, should be
used to judge reality. So, it may be a losing battle, but we should all
try. I don’t want to be forced, someday, to stand by as the rest of the
world renames our nation “America the Ignorant.”

Monday, May 19, 2014

For some reason, the US national characteristic of anti-intellectualism is being noticed in the press with MacLeans (Canada) America Dumbs Down and the New York Review of Books, Age of Ignorance.
I've also been doing posts on this since 2010, and am not the only
person to have noticed this trend. As I said, this isn't really news
since Richard Hofstadter won the 1964 Pulitzer prize for a book titled Anti-intellectualism in American Life. Hofstadter attributed this trend toward the democratisation of knowledge.

in
2008, journalist Susan Jacoby was warning that the denseness—“a
virulent mixture of anti-rationalism and low expectations”—was more of a
permanent state. In her book, The Age of American Unreason,
she posited that it trickled down from the top, fuelled by faux-populist
politicians striving to make themselves sound approachable rather than
smart. Perhaps we can add media consolidation to the contributing
factors with fewer good news sources being available in the US and even
public broadcasting being throttled by crypto-commercials called
"underwriting".
Hofstadter's book was the landmark work on the
topic, even though there have been a few more significant books and
articles on anti-intellectualism preceded it (most notably Merle Curti’s
The Growth of American Thought in 1943), and even though it
has been followed, in recent years, by well known books from the Left
and Right, including Russell Jacoby’s The Last Intellectuals, Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, Richard Posner’s Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, and so on. The list lengthens if one adds in broader books about the “dumbing down” of American society.

Of
course, some of the US founders were intellectuals (Jefferson and
Franklin) who founded Universities or who praised education (Madison),
yet the trend toward anti-intellectualism has taken grasp in the US.
Hoffstadter pointed out that there is a conflict between access to
education and excellence in education (although, I am of the opinion
that one does not need to be formally educated to contributes to this
trend, which is reiterated in the MacLeans article where a US Second
Grader wrote to the South Carolina legislature that she believed the
States should have a fossil, but was rebuffed by fundamentalist spewing
mumbo-jumbo about evolution.

Charles Simic point out in the NYRB piece that:

It
took years of indifference and stupidity to make us as ignorant as we
are today. Anyone who has taught college over the last forty years, as I
have, can tell you how much less students coming out of high school
know every year. At first it was shocking, but it no longer surprises
any college instructor that the nice and eager young people enrolled in
your classes have no ability to grasp most of the material being taught.
Teaching American literature, as I have been doing, has become harder
and harder in recent years, since the students read little literature
before coming to college and often lack the most basic historical
information about the period in which the novel or the poem was written,
including what important ideas and issues occupied thinking people at
the time.

Even better is where Simic points out:

In
the past, if someone knew nothing and talked nonsense, no one paid any
attention to him. No more. Now such people are courted and flattered by
conservative politicians and ideologues as “Real Americans” defending
their country against big government and educated liberal elites. The
press interviews them and reports their opinions seriously without
pointing out the imbecility of what they believe. The hucksters, who
manipulate them for the powerful financial interests, know that they can
be made to believe anything, because, to the ignorant and the bigoted,
lies always sound better than truth

It seems that the big push for ignorance comes from the right since an
educated, well-informed population, which is required by a functioning
democracy, would be difficult to lie to, and could not be led by the
nose by the various vested interests running amok in this country. It
is much easier to spread disinformation to a population which is
incapable of critical thinking skills than one which only hears the
things which they agree. That was one of the reason for the First
Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press: to have a healthy
and informed debate on public policy. But one cannot have such a debate
if the field is filled with rubbish spread by those who have their own
interests at heart.

To some extent, Hofstadter is correct when
he mentions the democratisation of knowledge, where someone who has no
real grasp of the topic gives an opinion and weight is given to that
opinion which is out of line with its value. The opinion of someone who
has no knowledge of a topic does not have the same weight as someone
who has studied the topic and developed an expertise of the matter.

Simic
points out the common misconceptions which are being pushed and offers
this conclusion for why anti-intellectualism has become epidemic:

Christians are persecuted in this country.

The government is coming to get your guns.

Obama is a Muslim.

Global Warming is a hoax.

The president is forcing open homosexuality on the military.

Schools push a left-wing agenda.

Social Security is an entitlement, no different from welfare.

Obama hates white people.

The life on earth is 10,000 years old and so is the universe.

The safety net contributes to poverty.

The government is taking money from you and giving it to sex-crazed college women to pay for their birth control.

One
could easily list many more such commonplace delusions believed by
Americans. They are kept in circulation by hundreds of right-wing
political and religious media outlets whose function is to fabricate an
alternate reality for their viewers and their listeners. “Stupidity is
sometimes the greatest of historical forces,” Sidney Hook said once. No
doubt. What we have in this country is the rebellion of dull minds
against the intellect. That’s why they love politicians who rail against
teachers indoctrinating children against their parents’ values and
resent the ones who show ability to think seriously and independently.
Despite their bravado, these fools can always be counted on to vote
against their self-interest. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is why
millions are being spent to keep my fellow citizens ignorant.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

One of these, the million trucker take-over of D.C. that was threatened in October 2013, set to take place over three days, six people showed up the first day, and no one the other days. (image, left)

Then there was another one in November, associated with joke-of-a-lawyer Larry Klayman; that failed utterly. (image, below)

Klayman failed event

This one claimed 30 million patriots were going to rise up in the 2nd American revolution, taking over D.C., and about the same proportion of people showed up.

Perfect example of Republican math, where numbers don't have an actual numerical value, or any relation to the objective reality most of us live in.

Perhaps, like their rejection of science, the radical right rejects simple arithmetic and counting?

Like the loser government shut down by the teabaggers in Congress, to repeal Obamacare, this accomplished NOTHING, other than to be an embarrassment to the radical right -- if they had sufficient conscience and integrity to feel shame when they did something wrong or stupid.

A 76-year-old retired U.S. Army colonel is planning an event in Washington, D.C., on May 16, that he hopes will attract millions of antigovernment patriots voicing a “simple demand” – the resignations of President Obama and ranking members of Congress.
Harry G. Riley tells Hatewatch his “Operation American Spring” is attracting widespread militia support and will be the sequel to last month’s Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada, “forcing the government thugs to back down in the face of ‘We the People.’”
“It does embolden me and gives me courage,” Riley said of the Bundy standoff, that ended with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management calling off its roundup of the rancher’s cattle for non-payment of grazing fees. Much of Bundy’s support evaporated when he made racist comments.

and

Riley said the effort is also getting support from the Tea Party, Gun Owners of America, the Save America Foundation and Overpasses for America – an antigovernment group whose stated goal is “restoring the republic.”
Riley, describing himself as “in alliance with the Tea Party,” wouldn’t estimate how many of his fellow patriots will meet him in Washington, D.C. “It could be anywhere from a few to several million,” Riley said.

It is worth noting that this and other groups track back their awareness of when things went to hell, necessitating this 'taking back' of America by white people dates back five years or so ........which coincides with when Obama was first elected president. But we are supposed to believe that there is nothing racist in the views of Conservatives? I would argue that racists, themselves, are not reliable sources for an evaluation of who is or is not racist.

Conservative activists including Jim Garrow, Erik Rush and Paul Vallely are pushing a rally called Operation American Spring demanding the overthrow of President Obama. Of course, in November, Larry Klayman held a similar rally calling for Obama’s ousting that he hoped would draw millions of people, but only drew about one hundred Tea Party activists.

The organizer, Harry Riley, predicts that “millions of Americans will participate” but warns that “patriots may be killed, wounded, incarcerated” and harassed by the government. After successfully overthrowing Obama, the group hopes to install a right-wing tribunal led by the likes of Allen West and Ted Cruz.

“[I]t will be painful, and some people may die because the government will not be non-violent; some of us will end up in a cell, and some may be injured,” writes the organizer. “If that’s what it will take to save our nation, do we have any choice? Freedom loving Americans will say there is no choice, we must begin the second American Revolution.”

I don’t consider the operation I’m working on as my initiative. A number of us have settled on an approach which we call OPERATION AMERICAN SPRING(OAS). It’s modeled after the people in Egypt(Cairo) who said “enough is enough” and went to the streets by the millions and stayed there until a resolution. We surely in America are saying “enough is enough”. That’s what we’re doing with OAS. It’s not the typical “go to D.C. for a day” and then go home, and we’re not having stages, speakers, etc in our plan. If someone else want to do that, have at it. We’re going with millions in the streets for a day or two and then leave a million or so in D.C. for weeks, months, whatever it takes. We’ll interfere with traffic, bridges, make our mandate known and stay there until..........?

…

Assumptions:

Millions of Americans will participate.

American veterans and patriots are energized to end the tyranny, lawlessness, and shredding of the US Constitution.

Government is not the target, it is sound; corrupt and criminal leadership must be removed.

Those in power will not hesitate to use force against unarmed patriots exercising their constitutional rights.

Patriots may be killed, wounded, incarcerated.

There is no hope given today’s technology of secrecy for the effort nor do we want it secret.

…

Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, Issa, will comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.

…

There is not much time and the only planning necessary is to select a starting date, which we have done, and then show up in Washington, D.C. on that date, and plan to stay for the duration. The goal is restoring the US Constitution as the law of the land, removing the lawless leadership. Will this be a cake-walk? No, it will be painful, and some people may die because the government will not be non-violent; some of us will end up in a cell, and some may be injured. If that’s what it will take to save our nation, do we have any choice? Freedom loving Americans will say there is no choice, we must begin the second American Revolution. Not with guns, but with millions of Americans demanding a return to constitutional government and the resignation of Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi and Holder as a start...then the constitutional restoration process can begin. An AMERICAN SPRING can be avoided only if the above mentioned officials resign.

Two congressmen, two former U.S. Senators, and the minority leaders in the Minnesota House and Senate are part of unusually high-powered group of hosts for a fundraiser on behalf of a state representative.

Norm Coleman, Rudy Boschwitz, Tom Emmer, David Hann, Kurt Daudt, Erik Paulsen, and John Kline are supporters of Eden Prairie Republican Jenifer Loon. Loon is running for re-election after failing to receive her party’s endorsement because of her vote last year to make same-sex marriage legal in Minnesota.
Sheila Kihne, an activist who may challenge Loon in a primary, led the fight to deny Loon’s endorsement. “I will make a decision on running in primary after the legislative session ends and before June 1,” she said in an email.

I find it unlikely that Emmer, Hann, Daudt, Paulsen or Kline are abandoning their aggressive opposition to same sex marriage that animates their base. But the numbers DO suggest that what the right used in the past decade or so as a wedge issue to defeat Democrats is now coming back to bite them as a wedge issue among Republicans. This is true especially between the anti-same-sex marriage component which includes the religious right and the Tea Partiers, and those more moderate right wingers who see the writing on the wall that this is not just a lost cause but an epically failed issue for them. The facts are not their friends, the trends are not their friends. Heck - REALITY is not on their side.
From the PiPress last summer:

Minnesota gay-marriage foes eye 2014 House campaign

On the day same-sex marriage became legal in Minnesota, the main group opposing the law announced a campaign to elect a "pro-marriage majority" to the state House in 2014.
Minnesota for Marriage said it will support lawmakers who took politically difficult votes against the gay marriage bill and encourage opposition to those who voted for it.
The lead group in favor of same-sex marriage, Minnesotans United for All Families, announced in May that it would work to re-elect lawmakers who voted for the new law.
Minnesota for Marriage spokeswoman Autumn Leva said her group's initiative is being launched with money from the National Organization for Marriage.
A statement on the organization's website said it will spend up to $500,000 in Minnesota and $100,000 in Rhode Island, where gay marriage also became legal Thursday.
In Minnesota, the focus is on the House because its members face election in 2014, Leva said. She said Senate races will be targeted in 2016.

The far right is not going to give up, and they are - or at least were - willing to put both effort and money to fight it. Arguably the result is that the Democrats will have an easier time winning against incumbents, both at the state legislator level, but also in the Congressional races as well in CD2, CD3 and CD6. And given that the only member of the legislature from the right who voted for same sex marriage AND who both received a unanimous endorsement AND no primary challenger (so far at least) is from Farmington in CD2. That seems to suggest that Kline's adamant anti-gay positions will NOT get him the support in his congressional district that it did in the past.

We've seen a steady parade of new states added to the long list having same sex marriage bans overturned, either legislative bans or state constitutional bans. Some of these have been in the reddest of red states, like Utah, Texas and Idaho. Among realists, this heralds the end of same-sex marriage bans; for those who are hardcore ideologues, it spurs them to fight harder to reverse the trend, no matter how badly they are losing in both the courts and public opinion.

And here in Minnesota, in a very real sense, our own battle with legalizing the recognition of same-sex marriage is not quite over. As a context, last August after same-sex marriage went into effect, one in three marriage licenses were to same-sex couples, according to this from MinnPost.

One in three marriage licenses issued in August were for gay couples. Brian Bakst and Patrick Condon of the AP write: “Since Minnesota became the 12th U.S. state to legalize gay marriage, at least 1,640 same-sex couples applied to be married. Counties aren't required to report such data to the state, so the AP built a database through calls to all 87 counties. Millions of dollars were spent trying to block gay marriage in Minnesota, while many millions more were spent trying to achieve it. The rush by same-sex couples to take advantage of the new law likely reflects a pent-up demand by couples together for many years. … At least 1,433 licenses were issued to gay couples in the 12 counties where most voters opposed a 2012 attempt to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota's constitution. One county in that category —St. Louis — wouldn't provide a license breakdown.”

I don't know of any continuing data on same-sex couples taking out marriage licenses in Minnesota, but it is worth noting that marriage rates overall are on something of a decline over the last century, with marriage at an all time low, per a report from USA Today on May 15th. At the same time, co-habitation is increasing. So, it makes some degree of sense to feel that so-called traditional marriage is under stress, but that stress doesn't seem to be from same-sex couples wanting to be 'gay-married'. No one can find any rationale, in the legal challenges to same-sex marriage, as to how same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

And it's not like the right wing-nut efforts to boost heterosexual 'traditional' marriage have been successful -- which is important, since right wing candidates are now pushing marriage as the solution to poverty. This is the new conservative gong they're clanging, evidence of the dearth of ideas and the vain grasping at illogical solutions posited by the radical and even not-so-radical right. From Think Progress:

And the government’s attempts at promoting marriage have shown pitiful results compared to the huge sums of money it spent. It spent $800 million on the Health Marriage Initiative but the national marriage rate continued to decline and the divorce rate remained unchanged, while state-level spending from the program didn’t have any significant association with marriage rates in those states. It spent $11,000 per couple in the Building Strong Families program but had no effect on whether couples got married or even stayed together, while those who enrolled were less likely to stick it out and the fathers were less likely to be involved with their children. And it spent $9,100 per couple in the Supporting Healthy Marriage program but it didn’t lead to more couples staying together or getting married and it had little impact on children’s well-being.
Meanwhile, despite Bush’s claim that marriage is more effective than policy at alleviating poverty, that also is not the case. While a disproportionate number of single mothers and their children live in poverty in the United States as compared to some other developed countries, that’s mostly due to differences in policy. Matt Bruenig at Demos found that family composition can’t account for the country’s high child poverty rates, but that our tax system and social safety net can. Without those public programs, the American poverty rate for children who live with single mothers looks similar to Finland, Norway, and Sweden; it’s after those are all taken into account that the difference emerges.

Traditional heterosexual marriage is not thriving, not succeeding, and sure-as-hell is not lifting anyone out of poverty. There is no evidence that this has anything remotely to do with same-sex marriage either. This is just more fact-free failed ideology from the right -- and yet, absent any new ideas it is arguably one of their foundational political base issues.
Fast forward from the 2013 legislative session that legalized same-sex marriage in Minnesota to the 2014 campaign cycle. To recap, four Republicans crossed part lines to vote for legalizing same-sex marriage. Andrea Kieffer of Woodbury did not seek re-election; Eden Prairie state rep Jennifer Loon, lost her MN GOP endorsement, and David Fitzsimmons of St. Michael., lost his MN GOP endorsement; the always entertaining gaffe-prone Pat Garafolo in Farmington kept his endorsement.

Voted for a the Marriage Protection Act to allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from another state in 2004;
Voted for a federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman in 2004 and 2006;
Voted against repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 2010;
Co-sponsored the following legislation:
Session-111; Bill Number-H R 2608; Marriage and DC - Cosponsor
Defines "marriage" for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to mean the union of one man and one woman.
Session-110; Bill Number-H R 724; Marriage Protection Act of 2007 - Cosponsor
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Kline's voting record doesn't square well with his support for Jennifer Loon. Could it simply reflect Kline selling out his base and his principles for approval and some cash from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Loon's husband is their MN guy. What price for that support will it cost him from his base among the hard core same-sex bigots?
And if this division over same-sex marriage persists, will it give an additional advantage to Mike Obermueller in CD2? Because John Kline can't have it both ways, to be for AND against same sex marriage.

Since it has become an issue with the Obamas, I have been asked about the differences between the categories of lawyer.

I would have to say that it is highly likely that the people making an issue of this are people who are unfamiliar with professional practise and licensing. That is because professions such as medicine and law require that you are licensed to practise in a jurisdiction: otherwise, you can be liable for unauthorised practise of law (or medicine, etc.).

If one quits the active practise of a profession for whatever reason, they may want to switch to retired or inactive status, which is different from being suspended or disbarred: although I know that being inactive, suspended, or disbarred requires the person to petition for reinstatement before resuming practise.

On the other hand, being inactive is not a statement that the person is unfit for practise: merely that they no longer practise law for whatever reason. This is the relevant section of Pennsylvania law regarding inactive status as a lawyer--204 Pa. Code § 93.146:

(b) Inactive Status. Enforcement Rule 219(j) provides that:
(1) An attorney who is not engaged in practice in
Pennsylvania, has sold his or her practice pursuant to Rule 1.17 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, or is not required by virtue
of his or her practice elsewhere to maintain active licensure in the
Commonwealth may request inactive status or continue that status once
assumed. The attorney shall file either the annual form required by
§ 93.142(b) and request inactive status or file Form DB-28 (Notice of
Voluntary Assumption of Inactive Status). The attorney shall be removed
from the roll of those classified as active until and unless such
inactive attorney makes a request under paragraph (3) of this section
for an administrative return to active status and satisfies all
conditions precedent to the grant of such request; or files a petition
for reinstatement under § 89.273(b) (relating to procedure for
reinstatement of an attorney who has been on inactive status for more
than three years, or who is on inactive status and had not been on
active status at any time within the prior three years) and is granted
reinstatement pursuant to the provisions of § 89.273(b) of these rules.
(2) An inactive attorney under this subsection (b) shall
continue to file the annual form required by § 93.142(b) and shall pay
an annual fee of $70.00. Noncompliance with this provision will result
in the inactive attorney incurring late payment penalites, incurring a
collection fee for any check in payment that has been returned to the
Board unpaid, and being placed on administrative suspension in
accordance with the provisions of § 93.144.
(3) Administrative Change in Status from Inactive Status to Active Status:
An attorney on inactive status may request resumption of active status
by filing Form DB-29 (Application for Resumption of Active Status) with
the Attorney Registration Office. Resumption of active status shall be
granted unless the inactive attorney is subject to an outstanding order
of suspension or disbarment, unless the inactive attorney has sold his
or her practice pursuant to Rule 1.17 of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Professional Conduct (see § 89.273(b)), unless the inactive status has
been in effect for more than three years, or unless the inactive
attorney had not been on active status at any time within the preceding
three years (see § 89.273(b)), upon the payment of:
(i) the active fee for the registration year in which the
application for resumption of active status is made or the difference
between the active fee and the inactive fee that has been paid for that
year; and
(ii) any collection fee or late payment penalty that may
have been assessed pursuant to § 93.144 of these rules, prior to the
inactive attorney’s request for resumption of active status.
Where a check in payment of the fees and penalties has been
returned to the Board unpaid, the Attorney Registration Office shall
immediately return the attorney to inactive status, and the arrears
shall not be deemed to have been paid until a collection fee, as
established by the Board under § 93.142(b)(2), shall also have been
paid.

In other words, one no longer practises in that jurisdiction and does not have to pay full licence fees or take continuing legal education (CLE). That also applies to being retired (same section) although there is no fee associated with being retired. The annual fee for inactive status is less than the annual fee
assessed active attorneys, and inactive attorneys are exempt
from paying the additional annual fees imposed upon active attorneys.

One can be reinstated to active status from inactive by petitioning the court and paying the fees for the period of being in inactive status.

Of course, one can not take new cases or actively practise law, yet remain on the active list, but one is obligated to pay the full licence fees and take CLE to remain active (if there is a CLE requirement) as well as any other obligations which come with being licenced. Also, one cannot be listed on a firm's letterhead if one is inactive since they aren't supposed to be practising law.

Also, some jurisdictions make retirement final (as opposed to being
inactive), which would mean that one would have to retake the bar if
they wished to resume the practise of law.

Whether one remains active, inactive, or retired depends upon a lot of things, but ethical issues are not a part of that: the real question is more like will you be likely to practise your profession? You would be better served by keeping your licence if the answer is yes.

On the other hand, some people do not need to practise law, but may wish to resume at some future time.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Conservatives
believe things which are demonstrably false, untrue, factually
deficient, and never more so than in their insistence that government
spending is bad or that taxation takes money out of the economy or that
tax cuts will lead to prosperity and growth, including job growth.

They don't. They do the opposite, as conservative ideology operates in the real world.

Yesterday,
Chris Christie's state of New Jersey, which is facing a serious short
fall after enacting his right wing fiscal policies, had its SIXTH credit
rating downgrade under his leadership. SIX credit rating downgrades --
and he was only re-elected to his second term as governor a year ago last
November. From Bloomberg News:

New Jersey Debt Rating Cut by Fitch on Revenue Shortfall
New
Jersey’s credit rating was lowered one step to A+ by Fitch Ratings,
which cited an $807 million revenue shortfall and Governor Chris
Christie’s likely use of one-time measures to plug the gap.
The
company cut the state’s general-obligation debt to the fifth-highest
investment grade, saying revenue forecasts were “overly optimistic.”
Fitch also expressed concern over “both the scale and belatedness” of
the shortfall, with two months left in the fiscal year. Fitch maintained
a negative outlook on the state’s credit, meaning it may face a further
downgrade.
The move affects $2.4 billion in general-obligation
bonds and Fitch also cut its grades on $32 billion in other debt. It
marked the second time the ratings company has lowered New Jersey since
Christie took office in January 2010. Standard & Poor’s has cut New
Jersey’s rating twice and Moody’s Investors Service has also lowered its
ranking.
“Above-average state debt obligations are compounded by
significant and growing funding needs for the state’s unfunded
retirement liabilities,” Fitch said in a statement announcing the
decision.
Christie, a 51-year-old Republican weighing a White
House run in 2016, has said “nothing is off the table” as his
administration attempts to close the gap. Most of the shortfall is
because of a $700 million drop in income-tax collections.

Remember
when Republicans controlled the House and Senate, back in 2010-11 term,
and they shut down the government for awhile? That was the result of
the same general era of Tea Party/conservative wave of 2009 and 2010
elections that put Chris Christie into office. Both Fitch and Moody's
lowered the state's credit rating back then, although only a little.
You can't lower a credit rating only a little when you do it six times.
According to Bloomberg News:

The three major rating companies have all cited recurring deficits as revenue fails to meet Christie’s projections.
“The
downgrade to A1 reflects the weakened financial position resulting from
recurring revenue shortfalls and ongoing reliance on non-recurring
resources that have deferred structural imbalances into future years,”
Moody’s analyst Baye Larsen said in the report. She said the state’s
outlook was negative, meaning it may face a further downgrade.

We were lucky, we elected Mark Dayton, not his opposition, inept right wing nut Tom Emmer.
A little reminding of what that was like from Minnesota State News:

On
Monday, Moody’s Investor Services lowered the state’s outlook from
"stable" to “negative," citing "political intractability" and continued
deficits as the reasons for the downgrade.
Despite the negative
outlook, the state kept its AA1 credit rating from Moody’s, currently
the second highest available rating from the prominent rating agency.
Fitch
Ratings lowered Minnesota’s bond rating last month from the highest AAA
rating to AA+ in the midst of the state's second government shutdown in
six years.
Unfortunately, years of budget uncertainty and
short-term budget solutions have been enough to take Minnesota’s credit
future down a notch.

Glowing
words about the Kansas economy gushed regularly from Gov. Sam
Brownback’s administration following deep income tax cuts enacted during
the last two years.

But a new report out last week shows Kansas is losing revenue even as tax collections grew in most other states.
Kansas
stood among 10 states with revenue declines for the first half of
fiscal year 2014, according to a new report by the Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government at the State University of New York.
Of those states, Kansas saw the second-biggest decline. The drop-off followed income tax cuts that began in January 2013.
The
news turned worse when April tax collections fell $93 million short of
estimates, followed by a slight downgrade in the state’s credit rating.
Overall, state revenues are down $480 million for the first three
quarters of the current fiscal year. The state’s budget is about $15
billion.
Missouri lawmakers are watching the Kansas experience.
Democrats fear the tax cuts approved this week over Gov. Jay Nixon’s
veto will eventually leave holes in the Missouri budget.
“Our
budget is in real trouble,” said Rep. Stephen Webber, a Columbia
Democrat. “Any economic development policy that says, ‘We want to be
like Kansas’ is an inherently bad policy.”

Ah, but how important are things like credit ratings and gi-normous revenue shortfalls? Another headline from the Kansas Star sums it up - and this
is important, because these Republicans governors are trying to blame
the failures of their policies and their right wing legislatures on
President Obama:

Under Gov. Sam Brownback, Kansas lags neighboring states and the nation in job growth
The
Star compared the Kansas employment statistics with those of six
neighboring states as well as the U.S. average. We used the Bureau of
Labor Statistics nonfarm employment data, which cover the large majority
of jobs in America.
One key takeaway is to look at the percentage of job growth from January 2011 through March 2014:
• Colorado up 8.2 percent (183,000 more jobs)
• Oklahoma up 5.6 percent (88,000 jobs)
• U.S. average up 5.5 percent.
• Iowa up 4.2 percent (62,000 jobs)
• Nebraska up 4.0 percent (38,000 jobs)
• Missouri up 3.7 percent (97,000 jobs)
• Kansas up 3.4 percent (46,000 jobs)
• Arkansas up 2.2 percent (25,000 jobs)
Keep
in mind that the rapid growth in Kansas and all of these states came
after a recession that sapped millions of jobs out of the U.S. economy.
Kansas, for instance, lost 58,000 jobs in
2009 alone. Even after four years of growth since the recovery started
in 2010, the state is still below its high water mark of jobs in
mid-2008. But Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska and Oklahoma all have more jobs
than ever.

That
message was driven home as new figures showed state revenues fell $92.8
million short of projections for April. Fooling almost no one, the
Brownback administration blamed the problem on President Obama’s tax
policies. The next day, Moody’s Investors Service lowered the state’s
credit rating a notch.

Turning up the heat on right wing lies

Opinions

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov, "A Cult of Ignorance," Newsweek (Jan. 1980)

We stand with PP

past wisdom

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."Billy Graham - Parade (1 February 1981)

An astute observation from Bertrand Russell

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

Penigma is pro-feminism, pro-thought

Ignorance is a choice

Just Do it!

Search This Blog

Follow by Email

You Are Here

Rules

Citing factual sources is encouraged, and critical reasoning is prized here. Spam comments will be removed. Harassment, intimidation, or interference will not be tolerated.

2. Trolls and flamers will be warned; if they continue they will be banned.

Discourteous behavior discourages discussion and debate, and is contrary to sharing the widest possible range of view points.

3. We will try to be scrupulous in giving credit and proper attribution, and also in disclosing associations that are a potential bias.

We ask that you do so as well.

4. Courtesy is expected and required.

Penigma is NOT an 'adults only' blog. We deal with a range of subjects that include those which are controversial, and are of interest to mature individuals rather than young children.

We intend this blog to be suitable for readers under the age of 18. Therefore, a condition of participating here is that our comments be self-edited, avoiding obscenities or similarly vulgar, abusive, threatening, insulting, or otherwise objectionable language when expressing opinions. Substantive points can be made without it.

5. We welcome suggestions and corrections, either through our comment option, or by use of the above contact email.

This is a moderated blog; there may be some delay between writing a comment and when it is posted by an administrator. We will attempt to be as prompt as possible, but ask your patience.

We hope that you enjoy reading Penigma, and encourage you to share your thoughts with us and the Penigma readers in turn, even if you disagree with us. _________________

The opinions expressed on this web log are the personal opinions of the authors. No reproduction or re-use of these personal works or articles published on Penigma.blogspot.com is permitted without the expressed written consent of the author; they are intellectual property, and so is this blog.

No rights of privacy or ownership by the commenter exists over comments. Once they are submitted to Penigma they become an integral part of the Penigma content and become part of our intellectual property. _________